Citations:

[2006] ScotIC 036 – 2006

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.434536

Judges:

Lewison J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 442 (Ch), [2009] 2 BCLC 78

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.375616

Dismissed

Citations:

[2021] UKFTT 2019 – 0394 (GRC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.659348

In a 12 part request the complainant, on behalf of the Pubs Advisory Service, has requested information about alternative arbitrators from the Pubs Code Adjudicator (‘the PCA’). The PCA advised that it does not hold the information requested in five parts of the request. It provided information within the scope of six parts and withheld the remaining information requested in one part under section 41(1) of the FOIA (information provided in confidence). The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: On the balance of probabilities, the PCA does not hold information falling within the scope of parts 7 to 11 of the request and complied with section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA. The information requested in part 12 of the request is exempt from disclosure under section 41(1) of the FOIA as it is information that was provided to the PCA in confidence. The Commissioner does not require the PCA to take any remedial steps.
FOI 1: Complaint not upheld FOI 41: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO IC-43239

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.658009

The complainant, on behalf of the Pubs Advisory Service, has requested particular correspondence about stocking requirements from the Pubs Code Adjudicator (‘the PCA’). The PCA withheld the information it holds under sections 36(2)(b)(i), 36(2)(b)(ii) and 36(2)(c) of the FOIA (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs), section 31(1)(g) and 31(2)(c) (law enforcement) and section 43(2)(commercial interests). It considered that the public interest favoured maintaining these exemptions. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: At the time of the request, the requested information was exempt information under section 36(2)(b)(i) and section 36(2)(b)(ii) and the public interest favoured maintaining these exemptions. The Commissioner does not require the PCA to take any remedial steps.
FOI 36: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO IC-44156

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.658010

The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking information about the visits to the Royal Air Force Air Cadets Squadron Gibraltar by personnel from its parent Norfolk and Suffolk Wing. The MOD refused to comply with the request on the basis of section 12(1) of FOIA because the estimated cost of doing so exceeded the appropriate cost limit. The complainant disputed the MOD’s reliance on section 12(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner is satisfied that the MOD can rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the request.
FOI 12: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO IC-46497

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.657999

The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking information about the use of Reaper and Typhoon aircraft in Operation Shader and for the number of sorties, and location of them, that RAF Reaper aircraft had flown outside of Operation Shader. The MOD provided the complainant with information regarding Reaper and Typhoon activities as part of Operation Shader. However, it withheld the information concerning the use of RAF Reaper outside of Operation Shader on the basis of sections 26(1)(b) (defence) and 27(1)(a) and (c) (international relations) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 26(1)(b) of FOIA and that in all of the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining the exemption.
FOI 26: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO IC-39378

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.657998

The complainant has requested information relating to reconsideration of Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs). The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough of Lambeth (the Council) is not entitled to rely on section 31 to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the withheld information. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
FOI 31: Complaint upheld FOI 17: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2020] UKICO FS50867388

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.653764

Dismissed

Citations:

[2015] UKFTT 2015 – 0257 (GRC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.644215

The Care Inspectorate was asked for witness statements taken by investigators in connection with an investigation into the care of a resident in a care home, and the documentation reviewed by them at the time of the investigation.
The Care Inspectorate disclosed some information (with some personal data redacted), stating it did not hold witness statements.
The Commissioner investigated, and was satisfied that the Care Inspectorate did not hold the witness statements.

Citations:

[2019] ScotIC 169 – 2019

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.645524

The Council was asked for information about social work policies. The Council responded stating that no information was held but provided the Applicant with some explanations.
The Commissioner investigated and agreed that the Council did not hold most of the information requested, but found that the Council did not comply in full with its duty to provide advice and assistance in relation to one part of the request.

Citations:

[2019] ScotIC 164 – 2019

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.645526

The Council received two information requests for records relating to a named cafe. It disclosed information. The Applicant believed that further information was held.
The Commissioner investigated and found that the Council did not hold any additional information.

Citations:

[2019] ScotIC 171 – 2019

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.645522

The complainant submitted a request to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for information relating to the application process for a position. The Commissioner has investigated the complaint and finds that the DHSSPS was correct to apply section 40(2) by virtue of section 40(3)(a)(i) of FOIA to part of the withheld information, however it incorrectly applied section 41 of FOIA to the remaining withheld information. The Commissioner is satisfied that the remaining withheld information may be disclosed to the complainant. The Commissioner requires the DHSSPS to disclose the remaining withheld information.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50444639

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.529904

The complainant submitted two requests for information dated 20 and 21 December 2012 to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) about ‘Operation Douglas’. The CPS has failed to provide a formal response which was compliant with the requirements of FOIA to either request. The CPS breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to provide a response to the requests within the statutory timeframe of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the CPS to provide a formal response to the requests of 20 and 21 December 2012 which is in compliance with FOIA.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50494500

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.528442

The complainant requested information held by the Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS Trust concerning a doctor recorded on the complainant’s medical notes. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust holds no recorded information within the scope of the request. The Information Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2012/0176 struck out.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50435332

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.529767

The complainant has requested information about revenue received by the public authority from what she termed ‘private investigative services’. The public authority eventually relied on section 12 to withhold the information and the complainant did not ask it to internally review this aspect of its response. However, she did complain to the Information Commissioner about the length of time taken by the public authority to respond to her request and he finds that it did breach the Act. The Information Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50447058

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.529783

The complainant has requested information about the public authority’s dealings with a named firm of solicitors. The public authority responded outside the statutory time for compliance thereby breaching the Act. The complaint is upheld but the Information Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a response was subsequently provided.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50456505

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.529761

The complainant requested information from the Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS Trust concerning an unidentified doctor and an operation performed on the complainant by the Trust. The Trust has applied section 14(1) of the FOIA (vexatious requests) to a number of requests by the complainant seeking such information. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has correctly applied section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2012/0177 struck out.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50437393

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.529768

The complainant requested information relating to media reporting of the collapse of the Northern Ireland Events Company. The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure took nine months to respond to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department failed to comply with sections 1, 10 and 17 of the FOIA. As the Department has now responded to the request the Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50480231

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.528446

The complainant has requested internal information on how the Information Commissioner’s Office handled any complaints it had received in May and July 2011 relating to any decision notices issued which had found that no information was held under section 1 of the FOIA. The public authority disclosed some information to the complainant, and stated that no further information was held. The complainant has complained that further information is held. After investigating the complaint the Commissioner’s decision is that no further relevant information is held. However, the Commissioner also finds that the public authority failed to provide advice and assistance under section 16 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to now provide the complainant with advice and assistance to enable him to make a new request. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2012/0192 struck out.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50443279

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.529738

The complainant requested information in connection with correspondence received from the Crown Prosecution Service. The public authority initially advised the complainant that his request was ‘vexatious’ and further explained that some of the information might be his ‘personal data’. During the Information Commissioner’s investigation the public authority changed its position and relied only on sections 40(1) and (2). The Information Commissioner considers that any information would be the complainant’s ‘personal data’ as it would all relate to correspondence about him. It would therefore be exempt by virtue of the exemption at section 40(1). Furthermore, the exemption provided by section 40(5)(b)(i) should have been applied which means that the public authority was not required to confirm or deny whether it holds any information under the Act. As the complainant has already been advised how to make a request for his personal data the Information Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50435644

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.529760

The complainant has requested information about revenue received by the public authority from what she termed ‘all sources’. The public authority relied on section 12 to withhold the information. The complainant did not ask it to reconsider this aspect of its response, however, she did complain about the length of time taken by the public authority to respond to her request. The Information Commissioner finds that the public authority did breach the FOIA but he does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50456199

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.529784

ICO The complainant requested from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) internal communications dating from around the time of the publication of the report of the Hillsborough Independent Panel. The CPS disclosed some information, but withheld the remainder under sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) (inhibition to the free and frank provision of advice and exchange of views) and 41(1) (information provided in confidence) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) were cited correctly and so the CPS is not required to disclose the information withheld under those exemptions. However, the Commissioner has also found that section 41(1) was cited incorrectly. The Commissioner requires the CPS to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the information which was withheld under section 41(1).
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 36 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50495066

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.528965

The complainant requested information from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) about ‘Operation Douglas’. The CPS has failed to provide a formal response to this request. The CPS breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to provide a response to the request within the statutory timeframe of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the CPS to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide a formal response to the request of 20 February 2013 which is in compliance with FOIA.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50492537

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.528441

Allowed

Citations:

[2021] UKFTT 2020 – 0244 (GRC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.659349

Citations:

[2021] UKFTT 2020 – 0182 (GRC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.658160

The complainant has requested information related to five named individuals. The Ministry of Defence (‘the MOD’) refused to comply with the request citing section 12(1) of the FOIA (cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOD is not obliged to comply with the request in reliance of section 12(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner also considers the MOD to have fulfilled its duty to provide advice and assistance further to section 16 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps.
FOI 12: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO FS50849371

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.650450

The complainant has requested information regarding a voluntary agreement entered into by six companies. The Pubs Code Adjudicator refused to supply any information within the scope of the request as it believed that to do so would prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Adjudicator is not entitled to rely on 36(2)(c) of the FOIA to withhold the requested information as the exemption is not engaged. She finds that section 36(2)(b)(i) and section 36(2)(b)(ii) are both engaged, but only in respect of some of the withheld information. Where the exemptions are engaged, the public interest favours maintaining the exemptions. The Adjudicator also failed to respond within 20 working days, thus breaching sections 10 and 17 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Adjudicator to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose, to the complainant, the information identified in the confidential annex to this notice.
FOI 17: Complaint upheld FOI 10: Complaint upheld FOI 36: Complaint partly upheld

Citations:

[2020] UKICO FS50878167

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.653783

The complainant has requested information on the inaugural meeting of the Advisory Military Sub Committee (‘the AMSC’) held on 5 December 2012. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Ministry of Defence (‘the MoD’) has correctly engaged the exemption at section 35(1)(a) but she considers that the public interest in disclosure outweighs the public interest in maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the requested information to ensure compliance with the legislation.
FOI 35: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO FS50687095

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.621261

Dismissed

Citations:

[2016] UKFTT 2016 – 0067 (GRC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information Act 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.572792

The complainant has made a request to Manchester City Council (‘the council’) for information relating to a company owned by the council. The council responded to the request outside twenty working days. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has breached section 10(1).The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50578693

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.555507

ICO The complainant, Reynolds Hardiman, requested the information from the Commissioner which related to a case heard by the Information Tribunal following an appeal by another individual against a decision made by the Commissioner. The request was refused under section 32 of the Freedom of Information Act on the basis that the documentation consisted of court records. This Decision Notice does not uphold the complaint made and agrees that the exemption has been applied correctly. However, the refusal notice issued in response to the request does not fully comply with the requirements of section 17.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 32 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2006] UKICO FS50129136

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.533604

The complainant requested information relating to repairs and redecoration of student accommodation. The University of Ulster provided the requested information, but failed to comply with the statutory time limit set out at section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50473922

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.528523

The complainant requested the name of the officer who declared an interest in a particular planning application. Isle of Anglesey County Council (‘the Council’) withheld the information under section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly applied section 40(2) to the information it holds relevant to the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2015/0083 dismissed.
FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50560330

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.555212

ICO The complainant requested information from the ICO arising from a complaint he had made to the ICO under the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003. The complainant was provided with the recorded information the ICO held that answered the request. The complainant continued to consider that the ICO held more information than had been provided. The Commissioner’s decision in this case is that no further recorded information is held which addresses the complainant’s request.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2010] UKICO FS50271975

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.531361

The complainant has requested information from the Crown Prosecution Service about guidance given by that organisation to the police regarding the investigation of allegations of fraud made against members of the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The CPS provided links to information available online and, following a delayed internal review, disclosed other information. However, it withheld certain information citing section 31 (law enforcement exemption) as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CPS is entitled to rely on section 31(1)(a) as its basis for withholding the requested information. No steps are required.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 31 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50491436

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.528440

The complainant has requested information on who authorised a named council official to take of photographs of her property. The Commissioner’s decision is that Herefordshire Council was correct to refuse the request under regulation 12(4)(a) on the basis that it did not hold the information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to taken any action.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.4.a – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FER0487645

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.528464

The complainant has made two information requests in connection with an investigation into her son’s death. These were dealt with under the terms of the Data Protection Act and ‘business as usual’ but no formal response has been provided to either under the terms of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority provide a formal response, covering both requests, under the terms of the FOIA.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50483908

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.528223

The complainant has requested copies of specific communications sent and received by Alfriston Parish Council. The council failed to respond to the request.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50474660

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.528165

The complainant requested information relating to the Iraq Inquiry. By the date of this notice the FCO had yet to provide a substantive response to this request and the Commissioner’s decision is that, in so doing, the FCO has breached the requirements of sections 10(1) and 17(3) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the FCO provide to the complainant a full response to his information request. The requested information should either be disclosed, or the complainant should be provided with a refusal notice giving a full explanation as to why the information will not be disclosed, including any public interest considerations.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50499580

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.528456

The Tribunal allows the appeal on one issue only and substitutes the following decision notice in place of the decision notice dated 21 July 2010. Additionally the Tribunal requests that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office further reviews its redactions in light of the matters set out in paragraphs 33-34 of this judgement with a view to applying consistent principles of disclosure.

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT EA – 2010 – 0151 (GRC

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information Act 2000

Information

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.443592

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50556618

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.555819

The complainant has requested information regarding the salary and job role of Cressida Dick. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (‘FCO’) refused to provide this citing section 23 (security bodies) as its basis for doing so. It upheld this at internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCO is entitled to rely on section 23(1) as its basis for withholding the requested information. No steps are required.
FOI 23: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50585221

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.555803

The complainant has requested information regarding the salary and job role of Cressida Dick. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (‘FCO’) refused to provide this citing section 23 (security bodies) as its basis for doing so. It upheld this at internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCO is entitled to rely on section 23(1) as its basis for withholding the requested information. No steps are required.
FOI 23: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50576429

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.555801

The complainant made a request to the ICO for information about publishing details of cases where it had decided not to issue a Decision Notice under section 50(2)(c) of FOIA. In response the ICO said that the requested information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information was not held and that the ICO dealt with the request in accordance with FOIA. He requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 1: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50580880

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.555813

The complainant requested information in relation to works carried out by the public authority. The public authority initially responded by stating that it did not believe the EIR applied. Following the Commissioner’s intervention, the public authority accepted that the EIR did apply to this request and released most of the information to the complainant. The public authority also informed the complainant that some of the information was not held and that it was withholding other information by applying regulation 13 (personal data). The Commissioner upheld the application of Regulation 13 but found that the public authority had responded later than 20 working days after receipt of the request. The Commissioner also found that the public authority had breached the EIR by failing to offer the complainant an internal review of the request.
EIR 5: Upheld

Citations:

[2008] UKICO FER0118853

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.532598

The complainant requested information relating to the former North Wales Hospital, Denbigh. Denbighshire County Council (‘the Council’) provided some information but withheld other information under regulations 12(5)(b), 12(5)(e) and 12(5)(g). During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council disclosed some additional information relevant to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied regulations 12(5)(b) and 12(5)(e) to the remaining withheld information. He has also determined that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any additional information other than that which it has disclosed and the remaining information that it has withheld under regulations 12(5)(b) and 12(5)(e). He does not require any steps to be taken. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
EIR 12(5)(b): Not upheld EIR 12(5)(e): Not upheld EIR 12(5)(g): Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FER0538283

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.555075

The complainant requested information which formed a submission to Northern Ireland Water’s (NIW) lawyers and on which legal advice was given. NIW refused to disclose the information and relied on section 42(1) and section 40(1) to withhold the information. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that NIW was correct to classify the requested information as attracting legal professional privilege and to withhold the information under section 42(1) of FOIA. It also correctly applied section 40(2).
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 42 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50437935

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.529852

The complainant has requested information relating to a tree preservation order (a TPO). The council disclosed information in response to the request. The complainant then made a further request on the basis that he does not believe that the report which led to the TPO was correct, or that the TPO was issued by the council following the correct procedures. The council provided him with a copy of the emails which led to the TPO being issued but redacted the names of officers involved under Regulation 13(1) (personal data). When the complainant questioned whether he had received a copy of one particular email it said that it did not hold a copy of this. The council also belatedly disclosed the identity of one individual it had initially applied Regulation 13(1) to on the basis that that person had subsequently provided their consent to their identity being disclosed. The council also provided him with a copy of its delegated authority procedures. The complainant does not consider that these were followed correctly however. He therefore asked for a copy which demonstrates that the officer who signed the TPO had the delegated authority to make that decision. The council argued that the TPO was issued correctly under the delegated authority procedures it had already disclosed to him and said that no further procedures are held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was not correct to apply Regulation 13(1) to the information. He has also decided that on the balance of probabilities it does not hold any further information falling within the scope of the requests. The Commissioner also considers that in respect of the identity of one councillor, the council did not comply with the requirements of Regulation 5(2). The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose copies of unredacted emails where it had previously applied Regulation 13. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
EIR 5(2): Upheld EIR 13(1): Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FER0580499

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.555798

The complainant requested information relating to the registration status of four named individuals. The Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority (RQIA) initially failed to recognise the correspondence as an information request under the FOIA. Following the Commissioner’s intervention the RQIA has now complied with the provisions of the FOIA and no further steps are required.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50495881

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.528504

The complainant has requested a copy of a financial viability assessment relating to a large housing development at the Elephant and Castle in London. London Borough of Southwark refused the request, withholding the information under the exception for the confidentiality of commercial or industrial information. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the council applied additional exceptions, namely those relating to intellectual property rights and the interests of the person providing the information. The Commissioner’s decision is: the exception for commercial confidentiality is engaged but the public interest favours disclosure; the exception for intellectual property rights is not engaged; and the exception for interests of the person providing the information is engaged but the public interest favours disclosure. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the requested information to the complainant, excluding any personal data as defined in section 1(1) of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA).
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.5.c – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.5.e – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.5.f – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FER0461281

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.528510

The complainant has requested information relating to arrangements they believe were in place to transport them from an appointment at Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham to their home. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, UHBFT does not hold the information requested. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further action.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50491260

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.528518

Citations:

[2008] UKIT EA – 2007 – 0085

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.266747

Allowed

Citations:

[2021] UKFTT 2020 – 0138 (GRC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.659352

Dismissed

Citations:

[2021] UKFTT 2020 – 0204 (GRC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.659351

Dismissed

Citations:

[2021] UKFTT 2020 – 0197 (GRC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.659354

Dismissed

Citations:

[2017] UKFTT 2017 – 0066 (GRC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information Act 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.644309

The Council was asked about the installation of a specific sewage system and for information contained in a building warrant file. The Council responding by stating that all information had been previously provided and that no further information was held.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the Council had partially complied with the EIRs in dealing with the requests. He did not require the Council to take any action.

Citations:

[2019] ScotIC 167 – 2019

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.645523

Dismissed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 2019 – 0190 (GRC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.645435

Citations:

[2015] UKFTT 2013 – 0119 (GRC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information Act 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.561346

The complainant has requested a copy of a referral he believes was made to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (‘the IPCC’), and related correspondence and information, in relation to the investigation of a police officer connected with the Stephen Lawrence murder investigation. The IPCC would neither confirm nor deny holding any of the information by virtue of sections 23(5) (information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters), 31(3) (law enforcement) and 40(5) (personal information). The Commissioner’s decision is that the IPCC was entitled to rely on the exemptions cited. The Commissioner requires no action to be taken.
FOI 23: Not upheld FOI 31: Not upheld FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50571980

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.555812

The complainant has requested various items of information in respect of public money spent by Llansannan Community Council since August 2008 in relation to the leased Post Office in Llansannan. The Commissioner’s decision is that Llansannan Community Council has provided all information it holds falling within the scope of the complainant’s request and has therefore complied with its obligations under section 1 of the FOIA. However, in failing to provide the information within the required timescales, the Council breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
FOI 1: Not upheld FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50578827

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.555818

The complainant submitted a request to the public authority for information in relation to two meetings held in 2014 between the authority’s Chief Executive and His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales. The public authority withheld some of the information in scope in reliance on the exemptions at sections 37(1)(aa), 40(2) and 41(1) of the FOIA, and the remainder in reliance on the exceptions at regulations 12(3), 12(4)(d), 12(5)(e) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that: The information in scope (ie only ‘the disputed information’) constitutes environmental information within the meaning in regulation 2(1) of the EIR. However, the public authority was entitled to withhold the disputed information on the basis of the exception at regulation 12(5)(e). No steps are required. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
EIR 2(1): Not upheld EIR 12(5)(e): Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FER0573098

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.555808

The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Hounslow (‘the Council’) relating to the job role of an employee at the Council. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has provided the complainant with all the recorded information it holds that falls within the scope of the request. The Commissioner has also decided that a response was provided to the complainant within the statutory timeframe. The Commissioner requires the Council to take no steps.
FOI 1: Not upheld FOI 10: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50585686

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.555811

The complainant submitted a request to the public authority for information in relation to an individual known as Alexander Joseph Patrick Wilson and for material retained from file FO 1093/263 available at the National Archives. The Commissioner’s decision is that; the public authority does not hold information within the scope of the complainant’s request in relation to Alexander Joseph Patrick Wilson (Part a of the request). The public authority was entitled to withhold the material retained from file FO 1093/263 in reliance on the exemption at section 23(1) FOIA (Part b of the request). The public authority breached section 10(1) FOIA. No steps required. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 10: Upheld FOI 23: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50577569

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.555802

The complainant made a request to Lancashire North Clinical Commissioning Group (LNCCG) for communications between former North Lancashire Teaching Primary Care Trust (NLTPCT) directors and Monitor and the Care Quality Commission in 2010 and whether these were provided to the Morecambe Bay Investigation. The Commissioner’s decision is that LNCCG did not hold the legacy information. However, the public authority provided its responses outside the statutory 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 1: Not upheld FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50566296

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.555215

The complainant has requested from the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) information about a civil claim against the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. The Commissioner’s decision is that the ICO breached section 10(1) of the FOIA because it did not provide the complainant with a response within the 20 working days required by the Act. The ICO has now responded to the request and the Commissioner does not require it to take any further steps.
FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50588299

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.555814

The complainant made a freedom of information request to the ICO for information regarding a pay award made to members of the ICO’s Executive Team. The ICO failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and the Commissioner has found that the ICO breached section 1(1)(b) and section 10(1) of FOIA in its handling of the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50568146

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.555211

The complainant has requested from Forestry Commissioner Scotland (‘FCS’) information relating to the proposed planting of trees at the RSPB forest reserve at Abernethy, Scotland. FCS provided some of the information but redacted the names and the job titles of the individuals involved under regulation 13 of the EIR. FCS also applied regulation 12(4)(a) to parts of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCS has correctly applied regulation 13 and regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR to the relevant parts of the request. There are no steps to be taken.
EIR 12(4)(a): Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50577594

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.555804

The complainant made a freedom of information request to the ICO for correspondence between the ICO and the Independent Police Complaints Commission regarding the Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Police. The ICO disclosed some of the requested information but withheld other information under the exemptions in section 31(1)(g) (law enforcement), section 40(2) (personal information) and section 44(1)(a) (prohibitions on disclosure). The Commissioner has investigated the complaint and found that the section 31(1)(g), section 40(2) and section 44(1)(a) are all engaged and that in the case of section 31 the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 31: Not upheld FOI 40: Not upheld FOI 44: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50568374

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.555501

The complainant asked the public authority to provide him with all the information it held about a survey into the car parking provisions at a number of hospitals in the West Midlands. The public authority provided the complainant with a number of documents, but the complainant alleged that there were further documents held by the public authority which were not disclosed to him. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the public authority located a number of further documents covered by the scope of the request and provided these to the complainant. By failing to originally disclose these documents the Commissioner has concluded that the public authority breached section 1 of the Act. The Commissioner is now satisfied that the complainant has been provided with all of the information falling within the scope of his request and therefore does not require the public authority to take any remedial action.
FOI 1: Upheld

Citations:

[2007] UKICO FS50145237

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.533026

The complainant requested the names of the doctors who had previously worked in a particular hospital department between the years 2000 and 2004. The public authority initially refused the request on the basis of section 12 but in subsequent correspondence confirmed that it was withdrawing its reliance on section 12 and instead refused to disclose the information citing section 40 of the Act. The Commissioner has concluded that the public authority was correct to withhold the information on the basis of section 40 but breached section 17 of the Act by failing to provide the complainant with an adequate refusal notice within 20 working days of the date of her request.
FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2008] UKICO FS50119963

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.532597